How the movie “Pacific Rim” reminded the writer of the deep-seated need to win arguments.

My last fight came after, of all things, the movie Pacific Rim. As my moviegoing companion and I walked out of the theater, he said of Guillermo del Toro’s latest, “That was awesome.” I, on the other hand, thought it was just okay, managing to slightly elevate its robots-versus-aliens premise.

At first, we slightly disagreed. But within 15 minutes, my companion was declaring the movie a sparkling beacon in the tide of summer-movie sludge, a brilliant takedown of the destruction movie genre. I, on the other hand, was calling it everything that’s wrong with cinema today — too much action, too much testosterone and far too high a body count. Wait, but you had fun watching the movie, I thought, even as I railed against it.

As our discussion crossed the 60-minute mark, and my cheeks were fully flushed, I realized that I was no longer simply stating my opinion. I was positioning myself to win an argument, dismissing my companion’s points no matter whether I agreed or not. I was in this fight to be crowned the person most in the right. And it didn’t feel good.

This silly argument left me thinking: What is it about human beings that leaves us needing to be right, needing to get the last word in no matter what? Luckily, two fascinating TED Talks — one posted today and one classic from 2011– speak to the strong desire … and give insights on how we can break through it.

Philosopher Dan Cohen has spent decades perfecting the art of arguing. And yet in today’s talk, given at TEDxColbyCollege, he reveals that he now loses intellectual debates more than ever.

Daniel H. Cohen: For argument’s sake
Why? Because he has stopped subscribing to the dominant metaphor that surrounds debates — that they are a war with vicious battles fought and with a clear winner and a clear loser at the end.

“When we talk about arguments, we talk in very militaristic language. We want strong arguments. Arguments that have a lot of punch. Arguments that are right on target … The killer argument,” says Cohen, dissecting how we argue. “[But] if argument is war, then there’s an implicit equation of learning with losing.”

In this talk, Cohen unpacks why the argument-as-war metaphor is so limiting — because it creates an adversarial relationship. It puts the focus on tactics (knock down your opponent’s argument) rather than real thought (do they have a point?), and shuts off the possibility of negotiation, compromise or collaboration. Because after all, who is the real winner in an argument? According to Cohen, it’s whoever has their worldview expanded. There’s no reason that needs to be limited to one person. In the ideal situation, everyone in a debate could come out with a greater understanding.

Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong
Cohen’s talk reminds me of Kathryn Shulz’s classic, On Being Wrong. At TED2011, Schulz pointed out a related paradox — that while we all know that human beings are fallible, we are loath to admit when we ourselves are wrong. “So effectively, we all kind of wind up traveling through life trapped in this little bubble of feeling very right about everything,” says Schulz.

In a brilliant moment in the talk, she asks: what does it feel like to be wrong? While first instinct might tell us that it feels terrible, she points that’s actually only what happens when we realize that we are wrong. Until that moment, being wrong feels exactly like being right. So often, clues pop up that could reveal to us our error — and yet, we often put up blinders to them. This is fine when it comes to a misunderstood song lyric. But it can be disastrous when it comes to bigger convictions that affect the health and well-being of others — or our planet.

But beyond that, explains Schulz, the need to be right simply keeps us from growing.

“What’s most baffling and most tragic about this is that it misses the whole point of being human,” she says. “If you really want to rediscover wonder, you need to step outside of that tiny, terrified space of rightness and look around at each other and the vastness and complexity of the universe and be able to say, ‘Wow, I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong.’”

And with that, I am willing to admit: I could maybe, possibly be wrong about Pacific Rim.

]]>http://blog.ted.com/the-upside-of-losing-an-argument-andor-being-wrong/feed/6Pacific-Rim-featurekatetedHow the movie "Pacific Rim" reminded the writer of the deep-seated need to win arguments.The best argument I ever had: A short Q&A with Daniel H. Cohenhttp://blog.ted.com/the-best-argument-i-ever-had-a-short-qa-with-daniel-h-cohen/
http://blog.ted.com/the-best-argument-i-ever-had-a-short-qa-with-daniel-h-cohen/#commentsMon, 05 Aug 2013 17:42:52 +0000http://blog.ted.com/?p=80616[…]]]>

TEDxColbyCollege speaker Daniel H. Cohen talks about the subtleties of arguing — and how we shouldn’t think of it as a war.

In an effort to gain more appreciation for that argument, we asked Cohen if he would answer a few of our questions over email. Read his answers below and, please, feel free to argue with them in the comments.

What is the best argument you’ve ever had?

There are quite a few that stand out — beginning with one late-night argument with a couple of other philosophy majors when I was an undergraduate on the nature of reality, focusing on Spinoza’s monism versus pluralistic and atomistic approaches. What made it so remarkable was that, over the course of the argument — which lasted several hours — all of our positions evolved to the point that I think everyone involved managed to occupy and defend each position at some point. The result: no clear winner, but we all came away with a much greater understanding and appreciation for all of these philosophies.

I should also mention an ongoing realism/anti-realism argument that I’ve been having with a poet … for the last 30 years! I’m not sure how much progress we’ve made towards any real resolution, but it’s convinced me that progress and resolution are not the most important measures of argumentation.

What defines an argument? Does this come close: Before an argument, two or more people have a set of incompatible beliefs and, over the course of the argument, some of those beliefs are refined to form compatible beliefs.

As you might expect, I’m not keen on overly adversarial conceptions of argument, nor on exclusively epistemic accounts of what arguments are about. There can be other things at stake besides beliefs. We can argue about what to do, what attitudes to take, how to understand things, etc. It is true that we can always shoehorn differences into questions about beliefs, but that’s a Procrustean Bed that fits some arguments better than others. Ideally, there will be cognitive changes resulting from arguments, but there are more cognitive achievements than acquiring, jettisoning or changing beliefs.

In your talk, you’re discussing theoretical arguments. Is there a fundamental difference between practical arguments about taking action (like who should take out the trash, or whether to bomb another country) and arguments about abstract concepts?

There are many differences — many of which are both very large and very important. But I’m not sure I have a good, short answer, except to say that a good arguer will argue differently when the goal is simply getting her way than when the goal is to convince someone of something. As Michael Gilbert likes to point out, if an argument about the empty gas tank in the car that one friend lent to another threatens to destroy their 20-year friendship, you know that the argument isn’t really about the empty gas tank. And I would add that any friends who would allow an argument about an empty gas tank to undermine their friendship aren’t very good arguers — and probably weren’t really very good friends.

Should arguments always have conclusions?

Heavens, no! If that 30-year argument I’ve been having with the poet ever ended, I’d miss it terribly. Arguing can be a very positive form of connection and communication, but it requires good arguers to keep it that way.

]]>http://blog.ted.com/the-best-argument-i-ever-had-a-short-qa-with-daniel-h-cohen/feed/1dan_cohen_grab_06_586x357davidgwebberDaniel H. Cohen talks about the subtleties of arguing at TEDxColbyCollege.